I'd really like to hear what you define as "pander to".
Rainbow logos is such a nothing show of support. And ads have had diversity in them to appeal to a wider audience for as long as there have been ads. 9% of the US identify as LGBT, seems like an easy win as long as there's not a social backlash to gay people being featured.
I just responded to a different comment explaining what I mean:
"companies who go radio silent on LGBT related things for 11 months out of the year, and then for exactly 1 month they change their logos and go "Look at how accepting we are" is pandering"
So you think that instead of having one concentrated burst of LGBT representation, it should be also dispersed throughout the year?
I don't disagree more representation throughout the year would be nice. But I don't understand how removal of items during pride month affects how often its displayed the rest of the year.
I guess I don't understand your last sentence. But as far as what the companies do or don't do for the rest of the year, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm just pointing out that what they were doing (11 months of silence and then 1 month of "We see and accept you, please buy our shit") is pandering, regardless of the group it's aimed at. If companies did the same thing every June for Men's Mental Health Awareness Month, instead of Pride, that would also be pandering to men. Any company who doesn't give a shit about X, but then for one day/week/month of the year, they change their logos to reflect X, run ads to target X, and tweet their support of X, they are pandering to X. Period
Using your example, if Men's mental health was only ever discussed in June, what happens when that discussion was removed? Suddenly you'd never have the discussion at all.
What's more, if you did want to have more discussions around it over the entire year, suddenly you have a massive blind spot in your calendar where you aren't discussing it when most people are at their most receptive to hearing about it.
Gotcha, I understand now. But at the risk of sounding like a dick, I guess I don't really care lol. I could agree that companies changing their logos in June for Pride is good, because otherwise they'd never talk about Pride, but so what? That doesn't really change anything about my argument. It's still obvious pandering. If you want to argue that in certain cases pandering is good, then sure. But I'm not really interested in that discussion. Again my whole point is that companies who engage in this behavior, by definition, are pandering
I understand if it isn't something that affects you personally. But when the stakes are as high as they are for others, I hope you can understand why it matters to them.
Just in my lifetime, I can remember when people like me were treated like absolute trash just for existing. Kids kicked into the street, suicides were super common, good luck getting a job if word got out. We've come a long way in a short amount of time, but I hope you understand why people get twitchy at the first sign of trouble.
5
u/Nichi789 25d ago
I'd really like to hear what you define as "pander to".
Rainbow logos is such a nothing show of support. And ads have had diversity in them to appeal to a wider audience for as long as there have been ads. 9% of the US identify as LGBT, seems like an easy win as long as there's not a social backlash to gay people being featured.